TMI Blog1962 (8) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r did not issue notice under section 22(2) of the Act. The assessee however submitted voluntary returns of income from the institution, which is said to be a tutorial institute, presumably in response to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Act. The income returned for these two years was ₹ 6,ooo and ₹ 7,481 respectively. On 6th February, 1958, the Income-tax Officer served notice under section 22(2) read with section 34 and required the assessee to submit returns of income for the said two years. The assessee wrote to the officer on 14th February, 1958, submitting that the voluntary returns already submitted on 30th March, 1957, should be treated as the return of the assessee in response to the notice under section 34. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duly of the Income-tax Officer to have dealt with that return and he had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 34 of the Act. Section 34 can be invoked only if at the end of the assessment year no return has been made by the assessee and the authorities wish to proceed under section 22(2). But where the assessee himself makes a voluntary return the aid of section 34 is unnecessary and is indeed unwarranted. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC) the Supreme Court held that a voluntary return by an assessee in response to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Act is a good return and can be filed at any time before assessment, and that the Act has not prescribed any limit of time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be filed under section 22(3) before assessment, and for this there is no limit of time. It was filed on the 5th January, 1950. There was nothing to prevent the Income-tax Officer from taking up the return and proceeding to assess the income of the assessee. It was open to him, if there was sufficient justification for it, to hold that the amount noted in the foot note was really the assessee's income, in which case an assessable income would have been found and the tax could be charged thereon. If the Income-tax Officer had acted on that return and assessed the assessee before 31st March, 1950, the assessment would have been valid. He chose to ignore the return, and served on the asessee a notice under section 34(1). This notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of any Tribunal does not depend upon the wrong provisions of law upon which the Tribunal might have purported to act, but upon the question whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction on a proper view of the functions and powers with which it is clothed under the law or the statute creating it. In other words, the Tribunal will not lose its jurisdiction which it undoubtedly has in a particular case because of its having misquoted the provision of law under which it exercised the jurisdiction. We would only refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. Income-tax Officer [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC): The Commissioner, when he transferred this case, referred not to the Patiala Income-tax Act, but to the Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
